Bitcoin Will Inevitably Lose Its Value, IOTA Will Take Over

The following statements, backed by scientific papers, technological and geopolitical, illustrate how Bitcoin will inevitably lose its value.
IOTA was conceived and designed with a vision further into the future than most of us can comprehend. Its features will turn into major benefits as time progresses and it is a question of when, not if, IOTA will take over as the standard in cryptocurrency and industry 4.0.
What limitations will be the death of Bitcoin and the uprising of IOTA? Though you will not find a defined answer to that here, my commentary and facts I present should authenticate this opinion.

Is this article FUD?
That’s hard to determine because fear, uncertainty, and doubt have become anything to an investor that threatens his investment. First and foremost an investors ignorance is the main culprit of FUD.
This, of course, also applies to IOTA supporters. Cryptoland and its effects, in general, have the ability to transform investors into raging mobs that ignore facts, reason, and humanity, just to protect their funds and hopes of a big return on investment.
Bandwagoning is a phenomenon that goes beyond rationality.
Ad hominem, blatant lies, death threats, I’ve seen them all. But one thing is for sure: the truth always wins.
Is this article filled with logical fallacies, bad anecdotes or lies? No, because I don’t like misinformation. Since I’m a subjective being (and also invested in IOTA), it should be evident that my fact-based opinion can’t be completely objective.
Whether or not there is an incredible number of competing projects, magazines and investors that are spreading lies and false claims about IOTA, this article is not about creating deception, it is just my honest point of view.

As long as there are no major technical flaws (which can happen to every cutting-edge technology), there are a plethora of reasons why IOTA will eventually overtake Bitcoin.

Satoshi

The incredible whitepaper in 2008 opened a world of wonders.
With a new perspective on transferring money, we experienced the first sign of real emancipation from the big institutions that fostered inequality and a world where the power was not in the hand of the people.
Despite rules/laws that prohibited such concepts, when humans all over the world received a tool to share their wealth, they were finally granted sovereignty over their possessions.
I think all cryptocurrency investors can agree on these points or at least use them to newcomers why they invested.

Since then, the ideological component of cryptocurrencies has been drowned in a sea of greed, return on investment and proclamations of “when Lambo“.
Bitcoin, the currency that was created from the whitepaper of Satoshi Nakamoto, is different than “a peer-to-peer electronic cash system” in many regards.
Some other changes were implemented because game-theoretical aspects needed to be included, such as the small block size. Some others are changed to account for the growing number of users that congested the network.
The biggest change of the technological nature, however, was that people became aware of the monetary advantages Bitcoin introduced.
Hard-forks, specialized mining hardware, bandwagoning, social media manipulation, smear campaigns, and hacks are the daily madness we all are aware of.
The incentive to earn money is so big that the initial ideological dream, the democratic advantage, and most importantly the technological advancement is almost completely ignored to a point where Bitcoin doesn’t fit into the real world anymore.

Mining Issues

Mining is a vital part of Bitcoin’s consensus and creation of the currency. IOTA has no mining. For several reasons.
“IOTA cannot function because there is no monetary incentive to run a full node” by Anon.
This assumption turned out to be false given that the number of full nodes, including Nelson nodes is higher than 5000 already.

Bitcoin is proud to be the most secure project. There is no other project with a higher number of developers and a longer time-frame where bugs and problems have been eliminated. That is a truth that every investor should acknowledge.
There are hundreds of projects, dozens of wallets, countless corrected bugs, and a journey that has undoubtedly proven that Bitcoin is not hackable. Not anymore.
The consensus is decoupled from the user.
The holy trinity of Bitcoin’s consensus lies in the miners, validators, and users.
Mining in Bitcoin gives the network its blood-pressure and nutrients, but the heart grows too big.
The hash power is growing exponentially because the rising user-number and the incentive to earn money with mining follows the mainstream adoption.
More and more people and companies, even hardware giants like Nvidia and AMD start to specialize in mining cryptocurrencies.
That is an ecological tragedy and a centralized point of failure masked as an advantage and technological progress.

Bitcoin global hashrate

Mining, right now, is mostly performed in countries with low prices on electricity. China, Iceland, India. The power that is used comes primarily from fossil energy sources such as coal and oil. Mining farms look for maximum profit.
It is a reasonable assumption that even in the future, they will use the cheapest energy source.

Iceland, however, experiences a different problem. The geothermal energy that is used to mine cryptocurrency is a limited collected source. Additionally, the electric grid is pushed to its limits right now.
Politicians from the Icelandic pirate party stated that: “The value to Iceland … is virtually zero.” -as even almost no taxes can be derived from that. The opposition is growing.

Also, the consumption of energy from vulcanoes still heats up the atmosphere. It may be renewable, but it’s avoidable heat for the atmosphere. An ethical and technological regression.

These examples show that political decisions can shut down major parts of the hash power at any point, given that the incentive to mine threatens the environment and the electrical grid.

Bitcoin key statistics of mining

These aspects apply to all other minable projects as well. An incentive to use cheap electricity for revenue is a dangerous path, not a technological advantage.
Since IOTA has no mining, but a small proof of work, the electrical consumption can solely be created in renewable energy-clusters in every city and area in the world. “Zero margin electrical power” can support IOTA that is functioning in a multi-connection distributed mesh net.
The incentive to use a global standard for data/value transfer and data integrity is a way better solution, both more efficient and politically accepted.
Since there are no centralized mining farms nor fossil energy usage, IOTA will be used everywhere, while Bitcoin will face serious problems.
Additional information on the energy consumption and the ecological footprint is written here.

As the last addition to this section, I want to highlight that Cogniota, according to developers of IOTA, will make it possible to sell hash power for computational services. This incentive combines two major advantages: IOTA can incentivize parts of the mining industry to sell their hash power in order to solve actual problems, rather than an exchange of money.

Scaling Solutions

Scalability is not just a buzzword that has minor impacts. It determines if a currency can be widely used in the future or not. IOTA is theoretically infinitely scalable (as far as bandwidth it allows) due to its unique consensus mechanism.
The lightning network (LN) will equip Bitcoin with payment channels that will enable billions of transfers, without fees. This is the missing piece of the puzzle, according to the Bitcoin evangelists.
Payment channels are a new approach that Bitcoin and Ethereum are exploring as the mainstream adoption leads to enormous transaction fees and transaction queues.
For now, the solution is in development, but we clearly understand that it is a necessity.
Those who used Bitcoin in December know that a solution is desperately needed as the transaction fees went insanely high.

Three problems, though, blur the hope and expectation the community has for LN.

The block size is limited. The opening of millions of channels will lead to congested blocks again. It isn’t true scalability, just a sophisticated procrastination.

Fees for closing the payment channels are an additional factor that hinders true adoption.

Centralized hubs (like exchanges or big services) will be a possible threat to consensus according to Jonald Fyookball

That means that even if LN will work as intended, the development will still not be finished.
On the contrary, an additional step will be an assessment, whether or not a hard fork has to be performed that offers bigger blocks. In the case of full spread mainstream adoption, even the LN won’t grant full scalability like IOTA offers.
It is not possible to open an infinite number of payment channels, as the block size is too small right now.
Also, closing a channel and synchronizing it with the mainchain costs transaction fees.
In a world of microtransactions, transaction fees, even if they are small, are a threat to businesses and the majority of use-cases.
An exemplary calculation of transaction fees with present systems can be found here.

My conclusion is: Bitcoin will not work in an interconnected world, IOTA will.
Additional concerns about mathematical proof that Bitcoin cannot run decentralized with the LN have been raised, but it’s still inconclusive whether that is true or not.
The bottom line is: Bitcoin is trying to develop something that IOTA already owns.
Zero transaction fees and true scalability.
On top of that, IOTA has already flash channels which are bi-directional, feeless and extremely convenient. That means that IOTA combines far greater on and off-chain load capacity but Bitcoin still needs to find out if LN is feasible at all.

Adaptivity For The IoT

Mesh-net capabilities in the Internet of Things will have several characteristics that contradict Bitcoin’s functionality.
The economy of the future will eventually happen in local industrialized clusters, as smart cities will create economic islands of data and value streams with millions of devices each.

The effects of economic clusters can be further comprehended here in “A Historical Approach to Clustering in Emerging Economies” from the Harvard Business School (2017).
These clusters will have a demand for a DLT that is capable to function in this special environment.

a) Geographical distances will create latencies that are comparable to asynchronous networks. The network topology will represent the streets in a mountain chain with several connections (with remote parts) that are not always connected to the rest of the network at all times.
Bitcoin, therefore, needs a functionality that enables offline chains. Right now, this is not possible because the Lightning Network is neither ready nor fully suitable for mainstream adoption, as outlined earlier.
IOTA, however, can work in this environment, because offline chains are part of its architecture. The synchronization of offline chains has no disadvantages and can be performed with flash channels or normal transactions.

b) Transaction fees for microtransactions

c) If IOTA works as intended, try to come up with a use-case that is unfitting for IOTA, but perfectly suitable for Bitcoin.
Since I had no success in finding the answer, I can only deduce that IOTA will be chosen over Bitcoin because the advantages are obvious.

The impact of the IoT on the global economy can be inferred when taking a look at McKinsey’s latest assessment:

10-15 trillion dollar market according to GE and McKinsey until 2034

I conclude that the technology with the best abilities will likely be able to take the biggest part of the market capitalization.
It remains to be proven if Bitcoin will survive solely with a functionality as “digital gold” -without intrinsic value. That would mean that Bitcoin would cost millions in mining and fees but had no unique feature.

Shor’s Algorithm

Quantum computing is a threat to cryptography as we know it. Though it is not yet suitable to decipher algorithms used in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies big advances have been made, especially with the big D-wave 2000Q quantum computer that already has 2000 Qubits. Since the D-wave is solely focused on reverse annealing, it cannot be used for integer factorization or other applications.

Reverse annealing allows users to specify the problem they wish to solve along with a predicted solution in order to narrow the search space for the computation. The predicted solution may be a result of a previous quantum or classical computation or an educated guess. But it is not suitable for an efficient integer factorization that is needed in order to find collisions on standard cryptographic schemes.

Other ventures though, such as the IBM Q project with already 49 Qubits, which can be used for integer factorization, show a rapid and exponential rate in this field of quantum computing.

Timeline of available qubits

It turns out, that Moore’s law also applies to the field of quantum computer. According to this whitepaper by Aggarwal et.al. suitable quantum computer could be available even faster than expected.
“If a quantum computer with a sufficient number of qubits could operate without succumbing to noise and other quantum decoherence phenomena, Shor’s algorithm could be used to break public-key cryptography schemes such as the widely used RSA scheme.” Edward Gerjuoy (2004)
Same applies to the secp256k1 elliptic curve in Bitcoin.
That means that the necessary number of Qubits that can perform an efficient calculation of the Shor’s algorithm with a negligible amount of quantum error calculations can be available in approx. 6-7 years.

Since cryptocurrencies are not used in our daily lives to buy groceries, the majority of investments are due to the expectational value of cryptocurrencies as a whole.
That could mean that if there is a reason to doubt Bitcoins success, such as fundamental breakthrough’s in quantum computing, the expectation value can vanish and thus, decrease Bitcoins value immensely.
This point on my list is certainly not the most conclusive one because it is said that solutions could be implemented rather quickly, but the comparison to IOTA raises an additional question:
Why would we use a technology that will soon be rendered insecure, that needs adjustments to work again, when we already have a possible solution with the Winternitz algorithms that are used with IOTA?

The tradeoff right now is that addresses shouldn’t be re-used, but with the upcoming Trinity UCL wallet, people will receive a big portion of usability and security for the post-quantum era.

Hope ≠ Reality

“Shilling” describes the nature of cheering for your investment. All kinds of reasons are brought up in order to emphasize on how good this particular investment is. Everyone does or did it. Bitcoin, Ethereum, IOTA, Nano, you, me.
These arguments and word fights are common, boring, and unnecessary, yet everyone does it and everyone thinks they have a positive effect on the global cryptocurrency price.
Bitcoin especially has a major advantage that on the other side, doesn’t reflect the reality: The network effect.
There are by far the most people invested in Bitcoin. It’s impossible to determine but Bitcoin has been around since 2010, generally speaking. Since then, tens of millions of people have invested on countless platforms.
If you ask a person in an urban area what Bitcoin is they usually answer: “Internet money”.
This fact is largely true because Bitcoin has been used online for e-commerce services for years already.

Since most people are invested in Bitcoin, we normally see the most shilling for BTC in social media. This fact has nothing to do with its functionality or innovative quality. It is solely because many people know it, and many more are invested in Bitcoin than in all other cryptocurrencies.
Another factor is that Bitcoin is still the reference currency for the entirety of cryptocurrencies.
If Bitcoin’s price falls, 99% of all projects fall too.

In the future other coins will become more accessible and liquid through fiat pairs, therefore negating much of their dependence on Bitcoin. The future demand for Bitcoin will drop.
IOTA demand, on the other hand, will explode with a growing number of real-world use cases, industry adoption, and it’s capacity to offer a new standard.
This means that the true innovative value of currencies cannot be compared with Bitcoin because of the high number of all biased “judges” and the social media indicators that show how many people like a crypto project. Bitcoin owns social media. But IOTA owns the best tech.
The one-sided coverage of negative events and criticism of IOTA is a big sign that the landscape is highly biased. But the truth is: companies and institutions do not care about shilling, memes, and likes.

The Adoption Race

The most conclusive point, and the one that needs no additional explanation.
What IOTA lacks in ease of use it certainly wins and solves in adoption and innovation.
The number of companies that are convinced that IOTA is the solution, is by far higher than in any other cryptocurrency, including Bitcoin. IOTA has already won this adoption race, which is the most important race. In a short time-frame of 2 years.
Bitcoin is in an anti-adoption period right now, a problem that arises from transaction fees and transaction queue.

Under these conditions, IOTA will take over the market capitalization of Bitcoin sooner or later. It’s inevitable.
Use-cases such as micropayments, data marketplaces, data integrity, Q (a secret project the foundation is working on for 4 years) and the incentive to use hash power as computational power are the knockout for Bitcoin as soon as these applications are working.
Since expectational value is created long before these use-cases are actually deployed, I expect a major bull run right after the announcement of Q.

When I combine both projects and problems, I don’t see much room for Bitcoin, as its problems are way bigger than IOTAs’.
Bitcoin is still no closer to achieving its vision after 9 years of development. Yet we see IOTA rapidly progressing to a production ready state for multiple applications in the near future.

So, this is another conflict of interest of the DCI.
This pretty much proves the dirty business conduct of the MIT Media Lab, Joi Ito, and the DCI.
And people still think IOTA are the criminals... you can't make that up.